Actually, hippie, according to news reports the bill was shot down by 40 or so liberal Democrats who refused to approve any bill that escalated the funding for the Iraq war. It was stupid of the leadership to attach it to a bill that was going to cause so much trouble. And, according to what I read, a fair number of Republicans bolted their party to vote FOR the bill, precisely because it would have raised the funding for the war.

Actually I think I disagree with the premise behind most 'Hate Crimes' Legislation.

In a sense much of crime is 'Hate Crimes'. Why create a special class of criminal based solely on that?

If someone is assaulted or murdered, they are just as injured or dead no matter what the reasons behind it. I don't think we need longer sentencing for those crimes.

They are criminals just the same, and should face the same penalty as every other criminal.

What I do support - and think we need desperately - is easier prosecution, and better court guidelines about getting hate criminals into the system. We need to be able to make it easier and more 'rewarding' for prosecutors to take on these cases rather than brush them under the carpet by refusing to prosecute, plea bargaining, etc.

We need stricter rules for judges so that they have firmer guidelines regarding sentencing, and do not release these people so easily back to the communitty on bail, probation, etc. And finally we need a prison system that does not grant so many early paroles to criminals.

A lot of people will disagree vehemently. Just my two cents.

Hate crimes legislation is one of those things that looks good politically, but doesn't really resolve an issue, nor go to the root of it. Its political fodder - not dealing with 'objective reality'.

ITJockActually I think I disagree with the premise behind most 'Hate Crimes' Legislation.

Yeah. The justifications for considering "hate crimes" don't hold up so well. The best I've found is that, for example, beating up a leather dyke because she's a leather dyke is actually a crime committed against all leather dykes as a community, of which the one beaten was only a symbolic representation. And even that justification only sounds good from certain angles.

Tack it onto a troubling Defense Reauthorization bill, and I'd have reservations about voting it through, too.

honestly guys dont worry about it. There are alot of bills that they need to pass before the sesson is over with and I wouldnt doubt it if they do it like the always do, toss it in a spending bill again and then pass it in to law. Thats usually how it works. =) It happened last time like that with the Min. wage increase it will happen like that again. if you here the word or phrase "Omnibus" check it. It will more than likely be in there.

I have no problem with "hate crimes". We distinguish all the time between types of killings, and one of the key bases for the difference is intent. Second degree murder = unpremeditated, first degree = premeditated. What are these distinctions but states of mind, acknowledging prior intent? And if we can and do distinguish for premeditation, why can we not distinguish between murders for money (in the course of a robbery, or professional hits) and murders for ideological reasons (hates homos)?

Rob-- I understand your point, but I believe the law already does that. This is not a new principle. And as to slippery slopes, no one is suggesting it be made illegal to dislike anyone. The law offers a lot of precedent for distinguishing between states of mind already, however.

In fact, the law--and I don't personally like this a bit--distinguishes between OUTCOMES. Victim impact statements, a bad idea if there ever was one, can and do sway actual sentences. So now we get a situation where two men both commit murders in the course of a robbery, say, and one of the victims is a crackhead and the other is a good man with a wife and four kids. Guess who's going to get the stiffer sentence? AND THE CRIMES WERE THE SAME.

Well, considering how ridiculously politically correct this country is I'm sure plenty will disagree with you ITJock but I couldn't agree with you more. A crime is a crime is a crime. To label something a "hate" murder or "hate" assault and to punish those offenders with harsher guidelines than the rest of the offenders just seems unfair to victims involved in cases where it's not a "hate" crime. Also, it seems like you're getting in to a dangerous grey area where you're punishing people for their thoughts. We already have a system that punishes people for their actions against others...not sure we can reasonably and consistently punish based on someone's perceived prejudices nor do I think we should. I also have another issue with the "hate" crime notion. It's the idea that only white people can act out of "hate" and prejudice. The law is supposed to provide equal protection to all but have you ever heard of a black on white "hate" crime. If it can't be applied to all evenly, it shouldn't be in place at all.

jprichva, I'm not at all surprised by that report. I've always thought this notion by a lot of gays that most Democrats would go to the mat for our "rights" is silly. Unless they're actually gay Democrats, I believe most all of them have no problem sacrificing "gay rights" of any kind when it gets in the way of a bigger agenda. Democrats have most of the gay voting block by the balls because they know most will never vote Republican no matter what. If you don't think they're counting on that, you better think again.

To those who believe a "crime is a crime": do you feel this way about drug sentencing laws as well or would you have universal guidelines there as well?

To those who say "I support our troops 100%" (HERE I WILL OFFEND MANY SURELY): your troops are occupying a country that did not attach you and just so happened to be sitting on major oil reserves. Not saying you should demonize people who join the army out of desperation or the like, BUT, please keep in mind that your present-day "support" helps justify the genocide in Iraq which has to date killed close to 1,000,000 human beings in 4 years. Nuance boys, it's all about nuance.

A hate crime is act of terrorism, in my opinion. By its nature the victim is specifically targeted due to his/her identity or race or ethnicity or religion or whatever. The act of violence is one against all others in that same class, and therefore instills fear in the entire group. This is distinctly different from a random act of violence or violence done during the commission of another crime.

This is why we need need hate crimes legislation, because it is a different type of act.

I agree with ITJock. Crime is crime. If we start making special laws concerning "Hate Crimes", aren't we prosecuting thought, not just action? That's pretty scary because we still, supposedly, enjoy the freedom to think and say what we please. "Hate Crimes" legislation is very Orwelian and definitely takes us down the wrong path.

"To those who believe a "crime is a crime": do you feel this way about drug sentencing laws as well or would you have universal guidelines there as well?"

Completely different topic, in my mind. First, I think most drugs should be legal. But that's a topic for another thread... :-) Of course the law must account for state of mind, etc. when sentencing. However, I don't think we should have special laws that, in essence, punish thought. That's what "Hate Crimes" legislation does and I think that's very scary!!!